2/11/2016

My newest piece at National Review Online: "Trump and Eminent Domain"

‘Eminent domain is an absolute necessity,” said Donald Trump during Saturday’s Republican presidential debate. “Without it,” he claimed, “you wouldn’t have roads, you wouldn’t have hospitals, you wouldn’t have anything. You wouldn’t have schools, you wouldn’t have bridges. You need eminent domain.” In fact, though, we would still have roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals.

It’s a relatively new phenomenon for the government to seize property on behalf of private development projects. And yet, so very many of these projects somehow used to get done. Only one thing is certain when it comes to eminent domain: Those who have their property seized don’t get paid enough for it.

Admittedly, trying to clear out all the homes from a certain area can be a seemingly insurmountable challenge. But there are free-market solutions.

Suppose that Trump wants to build a skyscraper and has to tear down the houses on an entire block. The obvious approach is to buy everyone‘s house, but this doesn’t always work. Because of sentimental attachment, some homeowners will refuse even offers that far exceed the fair market value. . . .

2/10/2016

Would I have included a graphic with Israeli flags next to Jews who support gun control? Probably not, because no matter what my intent I would worry that it would be misinterpreted. Nor would I ever use the inflammatory language Ted uses, but Ted is fighting to let Jews protect themselves. How many anti-semitics would fight with ever fiber of their being to make sure that Jews in particular have the right to own guns for protection? The problem with people such as Mark Follman and Mother Jones is that they deliberately cherry-pick from Ted's statements to make him look anti-semitic.

The point that Ted was making is that some Jews haven't learned one important lesson from the Holocaust, a lesson that was behind the push to create the Jewish state: an attempt to create a safe place for Jews. Anyone who takes a minute or two to read what Ted has written would know that he has one bottom line: let Jews protect themselves so that they can keep another Holocaust from ever happening.

Here is from a post that Ted also put up on Monday. Why didn't Mother Jones quote this or at least try to explain it away?

As to the "Soulless sheep to slaughter" comment. Couldn't Mother Jones have noted the full discussion? See for example this discussion in the same post.

There are so many quotes that Mother Jones missed. Ted writes in just a way that it is possible to take a short discussion out of context. The question is why someone wants to go out of their way to take his statements out of context. Why would anyone trust Mother Jones?

2/08/2016

Is Hillary Clinton's Gun Control Push Backfiring in New Hampshire?

Over the last month, a quarter of all of her campaign ads in New Hampshire have focused on gun control. In rural areas of Iowa, by contrast, she did not run a single ad related to gun control. In all of Iowa, just six percent of her ads discussed guns.

But even among Democrats in New Hampshire things are working out quite as well as Hillary might have hoped. From the Associated Press:

With each mass shooting in the United States in the past year, a debate raged about whether gun-control measures were overdue to make Americans safe.But not in New Hampshire.The gun culture is alive and well here, and with a population overwhelmingly familiar with and comfortable with firearms, gun-control issues that have resonated across the nation barely register among voters getting ready for Tuesday's presidential primary."Most folks in New Hampshire, I don't want to call them pro-gun but they're comfortable with guns," said Wayne Lesperance, a professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. The state is legendary for its strong libertarian streak, famously boasting "Live Free or Die" on its license plates. . . .Brita Tirrell, a New Hampshire native and 34-year-old nurse from Concord, doesn't own a gun and has no interest in them."Am I into violence? Nope. But am I opposed to people having them for their protection? No," she said. Asked where she ranks it in her thinking about the primary, she said, "It's at the bottom of the list." . . .